Subjects watched an average of 3.6 hours per day. And each hour translated into 144 fewer steps per day. Those who watched the most TV were less likely to achieve a healthy benchmark of 10,000 steps a day.

So, zero hours of TV translates into 5% more walking in a single day. Woop-de-farking-doo. Now, if you use those steps to go to the gym, that might make a difference.

Christ, what an annoying article. I don't know about that O'Reilly crack at the end, but if I had to read 20 hours of that shiat a week I'd be 100% more likely to headbutt the idiot "journalist" that typed that piece of garbage up.

Then there are the strange contradictions that emerge from TV-related studies. Two years ago, Pediatrics published a study that found a relationship between TV watching and attention problems in 7-year-olds. In March, the same journal published a study that found no relationship.

Ye gods, someone introduce this person to the scientific process. It is, in fact, possible for studies to contradict each other and be published. It's not like the conclusions of a study are automatic dogma.

donotswallowThat's basically what TFA is saying. Lots of researchers, probably taking a cue from Ric Romero, are doing absolutely useless research. From TFA:The study, conducted by two bored cats inside the East York Bunker, will be published in the A&E pages of today's Star under the headline: "TV watchers watch TV."

Eesh.

Question 1: When will academics stop suckling at the teat of questionable scholarship? Question 2: When will television stop inspiring such hare-brained research?

libbynomore2:which also includes allowing those who are too stupid, or too weak to fend for themselves to simply die away...

Alright, you're a troll, but you're so shiny, I can't resist.

That's a spurious extension of scientific observation to moral conclusion, directly premised on the fallacy of nature: That a thing more "natural" is somehow morally superior to a thing less natural.

The counterargument is simply that generosity and selflessness are traits we have evolved, hence, they help our survival as a species and should be supported. But this is also an unscientific argument because science does not make moral judgements. It observes.

And, since you already appear to be leaning towards an anti scientific point of view, let me go ahead and troll you back: The inability of science to make moral judgement does not preclude its practitioners from being moral people who are also informed by science and consistent with it, and morality still does not require religion to exist, nor does it require science not to exist.

Did no one get it? The headline is the title of the study of people who study TV-watchers. They are being sarcastic and thereby poking fun at their subject, the moron studiers of TV-watchers who never come up with any insights, it seems.